ML19257B463
| ML19257B463 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/03/1980 |
| From: | Bradford P NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Ahearne J, Gilinsky V, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257B464 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001160312 | |
| Download: ML19257B463 (1) | |
Text
l m.,
UNITED STATES g,
8 NUCLE AR REGULATORY Corr.11SSION
/d[
h [l4 s +d 1/ f y..y WASWNGTON, O C. 20m c.o PO-
'f January 3, 1979
~...-
Of FICE OF-TH7 C OMP.U SSIO N E R fiEMORAt:DUM FOR:
Chairman Ahearne Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Hendrie PB FROM:
Peter A. Bradford Through a misunderstanding, the attached memo has become public in Wisconsin. Therefore, I am placing it in the Public Document Room together with this note.
If I had written the December memo knowing that it would receive general circulation, I would have used the phrase "was in a position to" instead of " chose to."
Otherwise, I still think it proposes a useful step, and one that is consistent with the recommenda-tion in the GA0 Five Year Report for increased Commissioner's use of the Office of Inspector and Auditor in performance evaluation.
The fact is that a Licensee Event Report having some bearing on a contested subject that the Commission was considering in order to arrive at a rapid decision appears to have languished somewhere in the system for at least ten days.
Furthermore it was never, even after our decision, called to our attention even though it appears to call into question representations made at the public session. Since the licensee also had reason to be aware of the Licensee Event Report, I assume that the review would include their handling of this subject.
In my view, an 01A review of this sort implies no wrongdoing beyond a sense that our system didn't function as we would like it to.
The point is to find out why not and to fix it.
If the ultimate con-clusion is that everything went as well as could have been expected, that conclusion will be more generally credible if OIA has been involved together with the offices which have direct responsibility for Point Beach. Any inference that the mere initiation of an 0IA review of an aspect of our system is by itself a reflection on individual integrity, clearly contradicts past practices and tends to undermine our use of OIA in many important situations.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
L. Gossick, EDO 1766 326'~
J. Cummings, 01A L. Bickwit, OGC E. Hanrahan, OPE S. Chilk, SECY 8001160
,